Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

damaged_sectors writes "A map marking what are supposed to be secret locations of 60 warehouses and other buildings where medical marijuana is grown in Boulder has accidentally been made public by the city. Officials say an 'oversight' led them to publish the map on the city's Web site. Kathy Haddock, Boulder's senior assistant city attorney who advises the council on medical marijuana issues, said Thursday that the map would be removed from the city's Web site. No conspiracy here folks. In other news the council will decide at its Jan. 18 meeting whether Boulder should circumvent the open records act exemption for cultivation centers by requiring applicants for medical marijuana business licenses to waive their right to privacy. The council could force all growing centers to sign such a waiver as a condition of receiving a city-issued business license. While the risk this would make it easier for Federal authorities to raid grow-ops might not concern council members and others opposed to medical marijuana — I have to wonder what sort of mentality thinks exposing growers to the very real risk of armed robbery by criminals is justifiable."

the government should be protecting citizens rights, not eliminating them.

regardless of the speculation about negative longterm effects (which are not founded in scientific research), the plant can grow almost fucking anywhere. someone can toss a seed in your yard and it will grow. would you want to be arrested for that?

Absolutely. However, don't ask a public or private ER to treat you at their or taxpayer's expense when you snort crystal drain cleaner. Don't expect food stamps or welfare from taxpayers when you make stupid choices that make you un/underemployed. Don't expect even medicare to take care of ailments that are likely traceable to such stupid decisions.

I agree completely with you, but there are two sides to the coin. On one there is personal freedom, on the other is personal responsibility and accountability. Pick both or neither.

What constitutes a dangerous lifestyle choice? In terms of injuries, running and jogging are just about the most dangerous things that anybody does. Probably the only things worse are things that people do for the express purpose of harming themselves.

Absolutely. However, don't ask a public or private ER to treat you at their or taxpayer's expense when you snort crystal drain cleaner. Don't expect food stamps or welfare from taxpayers when you make stupid choices that make you un/underemployed. Don't expect even medicare to take care of ailments that are likely traceable to such stupid decisions.

OK, wait... four words: Lung Cancer and Alcoholics.

In addition: Don't try learning to ice skate! Everyone falls a few times while doing so -- It's stupid to think you'll be the only one not to fall down! Insurance & Medicare should be denied to people who are stupid enough to strap blades to their feet and travel unnaturally fast on slippery surfaces. (IMHO, Hockey is safer than Figure Skating -- The latter should wear protective gear.)

I agree completely with you, but there are two sides to the coin.

Likewise!

On one there is personal freedom, on the other is personal responsibility and accountability. Pick both or neither.

This is a false dichotomy! One can be both personally responsible, and a fool. One can be both free and restricted by laws.

Not all drugs are created equal. I would place marijuana somewhere between Tobacco and Alcohol -- Both of which are already legal.

Let us not forget that prohibition allowed the mobsters to use illegal alcohol profits to fuel their wars. Remember this when you consider the drug cartel wars that Mexico is experiencing.

The answer is simple -- Tax it and regulate recreational drugs, prohibition only funds the terrorists while draining our resources via a futile fight to preserve the ban.

Thousands are being murdered annually because of the demand for Marijuana in the US. In one fell swoop we could clean out our prisons of people who shouldn't have been sent there, shut down the Mexican and American drug lords, and find a new source of taxes. We could also renew research on medical uses of Marijuana, especially Rick Simpson's discovery that it may be a cure for Cancer (see YouTube). Medical Marijuana is not a myth. The US Gov patented almost two dozen medical uses for it. See patent # 6630507.

Actually, depending on the metrics used, alcohol may be considered like the most harmful drug on the streets or just below heroin and cocain. Cannabis is lower than tobacco and LSD even lower than that.

Driving after smoking even a small amount of marijuana almost doubles the risk of a fatal highway accident, according to an extensive study of 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003.A study by th

All bullshit. For every one of those studies I can show you why it's flawed or why it can't be trusted because it is a GOVERNMENT FUNDED STUDY. The government doesn't fund ANYONE to study pot unless they intend to show it causes harmful effects.

In regards to psychosis, a study in a British journal recently found that is a flawed assertion.

In regards to emphysema, Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA studied marijuana and tobacco smokers for over 20 years, and found that smoking marijuana slightly REDUCED chances of developing lung cancer or emphysema.

Got any more pearls of wisdom you'd like to share with us ignorant pot smokers?

And if I'm not given that responsibility, then I can't be held responsible. That's parenting 101. Currently that decision has been made for me by the federal government - via prohibition. So don't lecture about personal responsibility when that option has been removed.

On one there is personal freedom, on the other is personal responsibility and accountability.

I used to believe that, when I was 12. The longer I live, the more I realize that life is a lottery - you can make all the best choices and be absolutely screwed, and you can screw off and do grossly irresponsible things and be rewarded for them like a King.

Odds are better that you will do well if you "follow the path" - you've got maybe 60% chance of being "average," but I know way too many people who have followed that responsible path just to be kicked to the gutter by things totally out of their control.

On the other hand, it is all to easy to throw yourself in the gutter - we are all presented with hundreds of opportunities to do so every day. It's a miracle that there is anything resembling civilization at all, considering how easy it is to screw it up.

For maximum screwup potential, try working with children in a country with a continuous pedophile witchunt. You are always just one misspoken word away from coming under suspicion. The management even advises staff to carry their hands at chest height when walking, lest they should accidentially brush against a child's behind and be mistaken for a grope.

Growing a plant that can be used to produce prescription medicine doesn't require a license.

If pot were legalized then I would agree with you, but medicinal marijuana != legalized marijuana.

It's not, but it's technically not a prescription drug either. It's still against federal law and federal law provides for prosecution of medicinal marijuana as well as recreational marijuana. Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."

Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."

I've come to understand that for a, surprisingly large, portion of the population, that is exactly the way they think. It's like they have no concept that it is the duty of the citizenry to judge the law.

I've come to understand that for a, surprisingly large, portion of the population, that is exactly the way they think. It's like they have no concept that it is the duty of the citizenry to judge the law.

Yup. Realizing this was the epiphany that changed my view on pretty much all political systems.

Following further analysis it became obvious that the condition is endemic and genetic. That is in a species bread for operation in small hunter-gatherer communes (whole recorded history is but a blink in evolut

Growing a plant that can be used to produce prescription medicine doesn't require a license.

There are a crapload of chemicals found in plants, and THC is hardly the worst of them. I never could figure out why people can't separate the two. We wouldn't call yew trees or amyapples chemotherapy drugs, we'd call them plants, yet taxol and podophyllotoxin are chemo drugs. We know ricin and solanine are poisons, but castor beans and tomatoes are plants. No one would call white willow or foxglove medicines, yet that is what salicin and digitoxin are used for. No one thinks walnut trees are herbicide

You need a license to sell food. The reason isto know who is doing it so they can be inspected to ensure that they are not breaking laws such as using illegal herbicides. The license is not to grow the plant; it is to sell the plant to the public (even through a middleman).

I certainly believe that people should be able to grow and consume coca and poppies, so long as they harm no other.

If they choose to refine that to a potentially dangerous substance and sell it, I agree that society needs to get involved. Similarly, I believe that you are within your rights to grow castor beans or curare, but should you use them harmfully or negligently, problems will arise.

You do realize every major illegal narcotic comes from "a plant", right? Cocaine is from coca leaf, heroin is from opium.

Despite the idiotic labels given to it by American laws, cocaine is not a narcotic. Narcotics refer to a specific class of drugs, which does not and has never included cocaine.

Are you suggesting that all of these drugs be made legally available to anyone that wants them without even as much as a license?

GP might not have been, but I certainly am. What finally did it for me when it came to cocaine and opium legalization was when I took a moment to review the reasons why these drugs were made illegal in the first place. Cocaine was made illegal when southern cops started saying that black men who used cocaine became more accurat

Behaviors and plants are different. One can be malevolent; the other is always neutral (unless it falls on your house or something). Even if you're against pot, your problem isn't with the plant, but rather with the behaviors of those who use it.

You want an argument for legalization? Here you go: (And I don't even use marijuana!)

If a bunch of pot smokers want to turn their brains to Jello and wreck their lungs, throats and mouths, let them. They are hurting no one but themselves. If you' say that we'll have increased health care spending, so what? If pot were legalized, you can believe that A) every single private health insurance company is going to mandate tests for marijuana and other drugs and deny coverage to those smoking pot without a pre

If a bunch of pot smokers want to turn their brains to Jello and wreck their lungs, throats and mouths, let them. They are hurting no one but themselves. If you' say that we'll have increased health care spending, so what? If pot were legalized, you can believe that A) every single private health insurance company is going to mandate tests for marijuana and other drugs and deny coverage to those smoking pot without a prescription.

Of course insurance companies already want to know if you smoke or chew tobacco which will affect your lungs, throats, mouth, but do insurance companies currently check for people 'turning their brains to Jello' by testing if they watch Fox news?

throat and lung cancer is from smoking period not from nicotine. it doesn't matter what your smoking you really shouldn't be inhaling it. As for turning your brains into mush, long term effects are hard to judge, but every adult I have met who smoked pot back in the 60's and 70's are not what I call intelligent or well off anymore. But I have a limited pool to work from as most of them are also big drunks, and so have other problems that need to be accounted for.

throat and lung cancer is from smoking period not from nicotine. it doesn't matter what your smoking you really shouldn't be inhaling it. As for turning your brains into mush, long term effects are hard to judge, but every adult I have met who smoked pot back in the 60's and 70's are not what I call intelligent or well off anymore. But I have a limited pool to work from as most of them are also big drunks, and so have other problems that need to be accounted for.

Just because you have to work with politicians doesn't mean you can extrapolate that to the general public.

You're putting words in his mouth. He's suggesting growing a plant (any plant) shouldn't be illegal. He didn't say anything about legalizing every behavior that occurs in nature, a totally unrelated idea. I am not really saying that this approach has merits, although I do have a hard time coming up with a plant that I absolutely think should be illegal to cultivate. I guess you could still ban processing the plants in certain ways (e.g. to manufacture opium) or to sell the grown plants or their products.

You want to argue for legalization of marijuana? Fine, argue for the tax potential.

Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.

Or take a philosophical perspective to liberty and how severe ill effect should the be before we limit that.

I think that's exactly what "you shouldn't need a license to grow a plant" is. How is "you shouldn't need a license to do XXXXX" anything other than a "philosophical perspective to liberty"?

But the "It's a plant" and "You can't criminalize a plant, man" are just stupid.

Why? I think the burden's on you to give at least one reason why criminalizing a plant makes sense.

If you are saying that everything natural should be legal just because it is natural, you are arguing for cannibalism, murder, incest and numerous other things that do occur in nature but we prefer to keep illegal.

Too bad for you he's not saying that.

When arguing whether substance X should be legal or illegal is really quite irrelevant from whether it is created by growing plants or synthetizing it in a laboratory (aside from the "difficult to control" thing, which is whole another argument)

Don't forget racism, there was a lot of that in the drug prohibition movement. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were being told that marijuana would cause white women to want to have sex with black men. It is a matter of public record that congressmen were told that marijuana fueled jazz music. Go back two decades, and you find that the New York Times published an article claiming that black men who used cocaine became unstoppable forces -- that even shooting one in the heart was not suff

Actually it was the pulp paper industry that was most responsible for pushing for the banning of hemp. A machine had finally been invented for breaking up the stalks and it promised very cheap, good paper. Hearst had just heavily invested in cheap crappy wood pulp paper and being a newspaper tycoon and publisher, used a lot of paper.I've also heard that DuPont also pushed for illegalization as they had recently invented nylon rope but have never seen any citations to that.The government was willing as all t

Cannibalism: If the person to be eaten doesn't want to be, yes, you'd have a point. You could argue against it for medical reasons though. IIRC, there was a tribe in the southeast pacific that ate their dead which passed along an illness similar to madcow or whatever the human equivalent is. But suppose cloned meat takes off. There goes medical reasons and the ethics of wolfing down some Steve or Sue steak. Nothing but good clean meat, all wrapped up in cling film right next to beef and pork.

What's your point? Do you think we don't deserve to know how the people that represent us do represent us?

As the article shows, we don't need wikileaks to breach the privacy of defenseless individuals, the government, already does so with impunity. But your point of view seems to be that if we want the government to respect the privacy of what people do in their homes we should in exchange forgo any semblance of accountability and government transparency?

But let's compare to some other businesses. Banks, for instance, are businesses that are often targeted by criminals. They - OH MY GOD - list their addresses publically! I feel the bank's right to privacy has been violated here. Not only that, but how can the banks survive now that the criminals know where they are?! OMG!

Seriously, people. If you legalize the growing of marijuana, it's just like any other product now. You want to run a respectable business, then do it. If you are concerned about security, do what any other company concerned about security would do, put down the pipe, and GET SOME SECURITY.

I'm fairly sure that banks choose to advertise their places of business, rather than having them helpfully outed by the local government...

Further, while retail establishments, banking and otherwise, are made as public as possible for obvious reasons, it is quite common for actors in a wide variety of legitimate industries to be somewhat cagey about the locations and precise purposes of their various "back office" facilities. Keeps security costs lower, provides less information to competitors, and so forth. Most of this stuff isn't truly "secret"(in the sense that it is nothing a PI or decent reporter couldn't dig up with a bit of work); but there are tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of industrial parks and office complexes around the country, often gated and typically deliberately understated, quietly doing assorted stuff, under the (small) placards of various corporations that may or may not be under some other umbrella entirely. In addition to static facilities, things like shipments of cash, high-value consumer or industrial goods, hazardous chemicals, and pharmaceuticals are quite commonly done quietly. Again, not secret; but the local government sure doesn't "accidentally" reveal the time and route that the next shipment of medical opiates is going to be taking into the local oncology hospice...

Obviously, this isn't the end of the world; but conflating retail and backend operations is pretty misleading.

I do work for a business in my town. It has a emergency generator, a secondary generator for HVAC/R and lights, and a tertiary generator for the -30F freezer. The stuff in the walk-in cooler (36F), the walk-in freezer (0F) and the other walk-in freezer(-30) (reachable only by going through the cooler and 0F freezer) are all small boxes and insulated containers marked with bio-hazard symbols. They keep a rotating temp chart that if it varies by more than 3F in an hour period, they call me for immediate service and inspection. And when I asked them what was in the boxes, they said "stuff". When I asked abut the temp requirements, they said the "stuff" gets unstable above 40F. The company name is very generic. The staff, about 30 or so, don't wear name tags. There checks are drawn on a local bank. And when I google them, there is no information other than their phone number and address. That's the "I don't know the whole frickin story" I am interested in. Oh, and they have never questioned any of my bills, or prices. I show up, verify the equipment is functioning within parameters (Amp draw, operating pressures, etc) and give them a bill. They write me a check then and there, no matter if it is 2pm on a Monday, or 3am on Christmas Eve (yeah, called me three years ago because the temp varied by 4 degrees F at approximately 11pm.)

Mostly white, 30-40 year old appearing staff. Everyone polite, and well spoken, but not talkative. No extremes, as in no ultra-short haircuts, but no pony tails and piercing either. No visible tats on anyone, and, which is strange, no secretary nor any place for a secretary. There is a front door, locked with blinds over it, a side door, a loading bay door and a enclosed ramp with the entrance door at the side of the building. And I live in a fairly Podunk town, in the south. Been doing the work there for a

I'm fairly sure that banks choose to advertise their places of business, rather than having them helpfully outed by the local government...

Further, while retail establishments, banking and otherwise, are made as public as possible for obvious reasons, it is quite common for actors in a wide variety of legitimate industries to be somewhat cagey about the locations and precise purposes of their various "back office" facilities. Keeps security costs lower, provides less information to competitors, and so forth. Most of this stuff isn't truly "secret"(in the sense that it is nothing a PI or decent reporter couldn't dig up with a bit of work); but there are tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of industrial parks and office complexes around the country, often gated and typically deliberately understated, quietly doing assorted stuff, under the (small) placards of various corporations that may or may not be under some other umbrella entirely. In addition to static facilities, things like shipments of cash, high-value consumer or industrial goods, hazardous chemicals, and pharmaceuticals are quite commonly done quietly. Again, not secret; but the local government sure doesn't "accidentally" reveal the time and route that the next shipment of medical opiates is going to be taking into the local oncology hospice...

Obviously, this isn't the end of the world; but conflating retail and backend operations is pretty misleading.

I quite agree.

And yes, while I (or random miscreant) can see the Fritos or Budweiser truck at the 7-11, they're rarely hijacked or robbed. The Wells Fargo truck is heavily armored and has men with guns.

The relative value is quite different for that which is munchies, that which causes munchies or that which buys munchies.

If the 7-11, Fritos truck, or Wells Fargo truck are assailed, police response and serious media coverage are virtually guaranteed. I don't know that would be the case with the pot grower.

Banks have security measures that are highly effective and widely used. A small-scale grow operation implementing the level of security used at the average bank would have no funds with which to do anything else.

You have to remember, these are very small scale operations. An average bank is dealing with literally thousands of times more revenue than these operations, and doing so with a limited footprint compared to a grow operation, which makes it easier to protect with bulletproof acrylic, cameras, a security guard, and a gigantic 2-foot-thick vault with a tiny amount of floor space for holding 99% of the cash and valuables. You can't grow this stuff inside of a vault like that - otherwise you're looking at a warehouse sized, multi-billion-dollar vault, with the potential to produce maybe a million or two in income yearly.

By the way, banks don't have their information published by the state, as you're insinuating they do. They choose to publicize it themselves (for obvious reasons). They can keep their location confidential if they wish.

If marijuana was as legal as tobacco or alcohol, it wouldn't be any more likely to be stolen, which is still somewhat common but generally at a small scale. Lack of availability, combined with the absurd street price for something that is a glorified weed is the problem. A security system is obviously part of the solution, but once pot is legal for any use (and at 46, I'm betting it will happen in my lifetime) then it won't be as huge of an issue.

...not the addresses of their currency distribution facilities or data centres they don't. I live near the processing centre of a large bank. The place doesn't have a sign, front door, receptionist, anything - Just armoured cars coming and going.

But let's compare to some other businesses. Banks, for instance, are businesses that are often targeted by criminals. They - OH MY GOD - list their addresses publically! I feel the bank's right to privacy has been violated here. Not only that, but how can the banks survive now that the criminals know where they are?! OMG!

Seriously, people. If you legalize the growing of marijuana, it's just like any other product now. You want to run a respectable business, then do it. If you are concerned about security, do what any other company concerned about security would do, put down the pipe, and GET SOME SECURITY.

It's funny that the submitter chose the words "risk of armed robbery by criminals" to describe the dangers posed to grow warehouses since, by law, Federal agents are allowed to and frequently do raid Medical Marijuana stores and warehouses in states where it's legal.

Since the Feds usually kick the doors down, wave their guns around and take all the weed it seems to me that if you described the situation to someone and didn't mention that the aggressors had DEA written on their hats then the person you descr

A few years ago, my company got seriously pissed off when the local paper advertised the location of our new warehouse containing $1B of pharmaceuticals. They thought they were simply doing a piece on economic growth, but every once in a while, some batshit crazy criminal decides to rob a drug warehouse. I work at a smaller warehouse and I know of three robberies in our (thankfully distant) past. We take security very seriously, yet we still rely on unmarked trucks and buildings to keep the crime rate do

I support medical cannabis -- indeed, I support the end of all drug prohibition laws. But how is there a "right to privacy" any more than for any other pharmacetuical? Every pharmacy has stuff with more street value than weed, yet the locations of licensed pharmacies are public records, aren't they?

If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies. Some people need to be on full-time pain relievers, but not that many. And in real treatment, you try to get people off medication.

How is the parent post flamebait? It's true. The only reason we have prohibition is because it helps certain people (like DEA and their goons) remain in power and profit. Under our current laws, dangerous radicals like George Washington [google.com], Thomas Jefferson [google.com], and John Adams [google.com] would be thrown in a federal prison. The whole medical marijuana thing might have whatever problems, but much worse than anything associated with it is the fact that lives are being ruined because a someone scumbag likes sucking up taxpayers dollars to screw over honest law abiding citizens.

It's flamebait because it makes a potentially controversial or inflammatory statement without any supporting facts or commentary. It's like saying, "An even bigger scam is the pretext Apple uses to promote 'openness.'" You may or may not agree with Apple's policies, but without any supporting verbiage, it's just a useless jab at iTards. Pure flamebait.

I think of scams as cheating someone. The growers, distributors, and consumers are consenting adults happily do business with each other. The only scam I see is big, intrusive government types propping up a failed policy.

I think of scams as cheating someone. The growers, distributors, and consumers are consenting adults happily do business with each other. The only scam I see is big, intrusive government types propping up a failed policy.

On the contrary, the growers and distributors are cheating the consumers. They allow them to believe that it is a harmless product, when that isn't really true [businessweek.com].

Maybe four times as many people need pot as need slurpees. It's an effective treatment for a vast array of common conditions such as chronic anxiety, ADHD, nausea, or just everyday aches and pains. It's not just for the terminally ill. While most states with medical marijuana laws restrict it to only the most severe cases, California allows it for any condition a doctor feels justified in prescribing it for.

If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies.

You're right, it should. The only thing standing in the way is the federal government.

1) There should not be medical marijuana. It should be as regulated as alcohol, if at all. Making it schedule anything is ridiculous and the whole reason it was made illegal in the first place was because those in power did not want to compete with it fairly as a textile (at the time) and then later on as a way to attempt to control the counterculture movement. There have never been any solid arguments backed by science to make this natural plant illegal.

Classic propaganda from someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff. The people I know who do consume it are more caring and intelligent than those I see constantly opposing it's existence.
but.... haters gonna hate.

Bob!? Is that you? Of course not. You have no idea who I am. Let me "learn ya." At the age of 7 I had already been exposed to marijuana. An older sibling who had traded joints for cigs and remained a user for some 40 years discovered that it was easier to babysit me, and thus fulfill his mandate from my single mother of taking me where ever he went so she could work to support 6 children, if I were stoned. Sitting me in front of the stereo stoned out of my mind, I was allowed to direct the party's music. (As a side I developed a keen sense what constitutes good music, but I digress.) Additionally, my brother-in-law by that time was a huge user and dealer as were many in my immediate and distant family. I'd seen more J in my first ten years than most would see in their life. So while you sit behind your keyboard smug in your anonymity, you might stop and at least check the "someone who" assumptions.

Ah, but the parts of the day I actually *am* doing something are very productive. And, as a former Fire Fighter, I can tell you that *most* of my day usually did not involve anything more strenuous than wiping down the truck.

Let's be clear - this is a business license. The city is well within their right to place requirements on a business as part of a business license application. Now, the term used here was waive their "right to privacy", but this is almost certainly not what the city ordinance will say. The ordinance will likely say that inspections can be done to ensure compliance with state law as well as for public safety reasons to make sure that there isn't a fire danger.

I'm not sure what the intentions of Boulder are, but we just got done crafting our own city ordinances for our small town in Montana. I think we did a fantastic job and one of the key objectives of writing it was to set up the guidelines under which the business license could be issued. The other major concern was zoning. At no time did any of us think, "Oh, we gotta collect all this information so we can do a raid." We collected it because a) it's the same information we collect for other businesses and b) there are some special concerns related to public safety and it would be completely irresponsible to to ignore those. For example, we require a security system and an inspection to make sure one was installed.

Always when pot is brought up, so to is this argument: "Decriminalise it..". . . "Alcohol is worse. . "

I work in public heathcare, and have had many dealing with mental institutions, the patients and the staff (many of which are indistinguishable - but that is another issue).

Take a look inside any mental hospital, now look at the "Mad" people in there - people not born with retardation but rather who went mad later. In my experience, the vast majority of them are in there because of Drug use and abuse. (I

I am afraid the data doesn't back you up on the claim that "many peoples psychosis is triggered solely by their [sic] use of drugs". Studies have shown that porlonged drug abuse may inflame psychotic outbreaks and other aperiodic abnormal events but causation is not highly correlated. Indeed, the correlation with respect to marijuana use is below that of other exogenous factors.

The way to FIX this is to legalize it. Then anybody can grow it - it's not that hard or expensive - and they'd have no reason to send squads of armed thugs to someone else's house to raid their stash. Then security wouldn't even be an issue. Diamonds and go

Ugh, another person mindlessly repeating "Security through obscurity!" like they know what it means.

If this were a cryptographic problem, then the "secret information" would be the exact locations of the marijuana producers. The decision to not publish it online is not "security through obscurity," it's the equivalent of not posting your SSN and bank account information on your Facebook.

I'm anxiously waiting to hear the decision. If they start posting this information I'll expect a call from my insurance carriers announcing a rate increase or cancellation. Either way I'll have to hire real security until I can move shop.

I do not think that anyone can sign away provisions of a State law? The Colorado Medical Marijuana Code [state.co.us] specifically requires licensing authorities to keep location information of optional premises cultivation operation confidential.

12-43.3-310.Licensing in general.

14) THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403 SHALL BE A CONFIDENTIAL RECORD AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT. STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITIES SHALL KEEP THE LOCATIO

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."...

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Young adults who used marijuana as teens were more likely than those who didn’t to develop schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms including hallucinations and delusions, an Australian study found.

Those who used the drug for six or more years were twice as likely to develop a psychosis such as schizophrenia or to have delusional disorders than those who never used marijuana, according to research released online by the Archives of General Psychiatry. They were also four times as likely to score high on a list of psychotic-like experiences.

The findings build on previous research and shows that marijuana use isn’t as harmless as some people think, lead study author John McGrath said yesterday in an e-mail. The study was the first to look at sibling pairs to discount genetic or environmental influence and still find marijuana linked to later psychosis, the authors said in the study.

Of the 1,272 participants who had never used marijuana, 26 or 2 percent were diagnosed with psychosis. Of the 322 people who had used marijuana for six or more years, 12 or 3.7 percent were diagnosed with the illness.

The difference was only 1.7% thats not that big of a difference, and I wonder what the margin of error is.

As another poster said, there's some evidence to suggest that the THC prevents cancers forming in the lungs. However, given that the mechanism involved in doing this involves killing the cancerous cells, I wouldn't be surprised if smoking cannabis causes other forms of lung damage. Regularly inhaling smoke is not likely to be good for you, irrespective of what you're burning.

In a move that has provoked angry protests but has delighted the country's legalised sex industry, the Danish government has launched an information campaign advising the disabled how best to go about obtaining erotic services.

...

In Aarhus, the second-largest city, disabled residents have been told that they may visit a brothel or call a male or female prostitute to their home once a month and pass the bill - which can be up to £300 - on to the state.

There is a ton of different pharmaceutical opiods. Primarily for the reason that nothing else can really come close for pain management. They're the best option, even with the problems they have (dependence, constipation, etc).

I seem to recall that heroin was developed as a less dependency-causing alternative to morphine. I guess that didn't quite pan out, did it...

It's kind of funny when you think how far we've come in medicine, with some incredible breakthroughs - and yet our heavy painkillers haven't muc